Individual Entry: Linguistics
« Finding brevity | Main | Ephesians »

If you read this blog, PLEASE sign in to my guest book on frappr. No personally identifying information is needed, so this is risk-free. Just provide a name (even a nickname), your zip code, and any statement you want to make ("hi" is sufficient).

If you want to know more about me, click here.

August 03, 2005

Thoughts : Linguistics

Long before Anne got her masters degree in linguistics, I loved the science of words. To put it into the standard formula for "thing Steve loves" – I am fascinated by the process of how sequences of symbols and sounds become translated into meaning.

One question I keep investigating – catching up on current thinking in the field as I am able – is: "what are the universals of language?" What concepts are common to all languages, and (conversely) what concepts are particular to specific languages. I'm currently reading a book ("The Atoms of Language" by Mark C. Baker) which tries to define all of the variations in the structures of human language into a small number of parameters. Individual "words" (or equivalent) vary greatly between languages; but how those linguistic elements are assembled to express thoughts have more limited variations (modifiers either come immediately before or immediately after the words they modify, etc.).

Even as a dilettante in linguistics, I quickly came up with some counter-examples to the theory presented by the book; but as a means to get me thinking on this topic again, the book was wonderful. In particularly the book gives some excellent examples of extremely "non English like" languages, which I always enjoy.

This fascination of mine is an old one. While in high school tried to design my own "artificial" language. The results were far too English-like for my tastes now – at the time I assumed far too many things were "universal" and were unaware of the alternatives. It is however somewhat embarrassing that, for the length and depth of my interest in linguistics, I have never actually learned a foreign language. I have always skimmed new languages, looking for interesting structures; but never diving in deep enough to be able to actually use another language.

I am also working to correct that omission. Anne and I bought the "Rosetta Stone" program for French-1, and I am slowly working my way through. This is a back-burner task, and I'm not sure if I will be able to give it the time it needs; but so far I have been making steady process through the lessons.

I also find myself linking about artificial languages again – perhaps I'll take another pass at my own language.

Posted by Steven at August 3, 2005 09:36 PM

Comments

The lack of language training is something that America really does need to fix someday. Oh, most people can work happily with just the one language, but for America to understand other cultures and other ways of doing things, they have to understand other languages.

The fact that they don't causes America grief in the world, and a number of Szy's to regret not having had the opportunity.

You have to try on those other shoes, to walk their walk, to learn the things you never knew you never knew.

Posted by: Roland at August 4, 2005 03:06 PM

Of course it is another interesting debate as to how much language effects how we think. It used to be popular to think language channeled how people could think (hence 1984's NewSpeak); but recent evidence has weakened that position. I'm not sure how much understanding a language in depth will tell you much about a people who speak it; but understanding that language differences are more than just using different words for the same thing is very useful to knock someone out of their intellectual rut.

Posted by: Steven at August 4, 2005 04:34 PM

Part of language learning, as taught today, is also learning cultural context. So you get a bit of both.

There is at least one example of a "foreign" language where language does affect understanding, concept, and thinking - sign language. Liguistic capacities (especially expression) of those who know ASL (one version of signing)is extremely limited compared to those who are able to lip read as well. This is even attested to by people who do both and try to communicate with those who only sign. Very frustrating for them. ASL has limited vocabulary, syntax, and concept because of physical limitations. You can't express some of the higher level thought processes easily with a limited set of symbols.

For the record, my degree is in TESOL...but it was in the linguistics department. I took linguistics, applied linguistics, and ESL teaching courses. (Flip side... I do consider myself a pseudo-linguist as well.)

Posted by: Anne at August 6, 2005 01:36 PM